Nancy Pelosi thinks that Trump is guilty until proven innocent. Trolling in this Movie is getting good!
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (32)
sorted by:
You don't prove innocence, you prove guilt. Innocence is a negative. You can't prove a negative.
i love baiting pro-vaxxers into claiming its been proven that vaccines DO NOT cause autism.
You can absolutely prove a negative, by proving a positive that excludes the possibility of the negative.
"Prove that you didn't rob that store"
"Here are airline and hotel receipts, as well as photos taken during my trip, showing I was in a different country on vacation during the time of the robbery"
By proving that you did do something, you prove that you couldn't have and didn't do something else.
You are thinking about it in the wrong terms, when someone says you can't prove a negative what they mean is that you cannot provide evidence that an event didn't happen. Like you say, you can provide evidence of another event that did happen, and abstract from this that something else didn't happen, but you cannot point at "nothing happening" in the same way that you can point at "something happening". Something happening can be observed, nothing happening can only be abstracted by the method you detail, you can't present something concrete and say "here, this is nothing!" because by presenting anything that means you have something.
Is that not still proof? Must "proof" be something you can hold or see or point to? That is surely one form, and a strong one at that, of proof. But I don't discount logical extrapolation as a form of proof.
The evidence that an event didn't happen, would be inherently tied in as an extension of the evidence of what did happen.
Logically, of course it makes sense that if you were in another country you couldn't have robbed a store in a country you weren't even in, that's why I said you are thinking about it in the wrong terms. The point you are missing is that you cannot point to a "non event", something not happening, in the same way that you can point at an "event", something that did happen. Sure, you can logically deduce you didn't do something, but you aren't going to have a photo of you not doing something. You can have a photo of you doing an infinite number of other things, and from that logically conclude you didn't do this other thing, but you cannot point at you "not doing" a thing in the same way you can if you had done something.
It is for this reason that you don't make someone prove their innocence, because outside of them presenting evidence that they were doing something else, by definition, they didn't the thing they are accused of, so there isn't going to be footprints, photographs, video evidence of this not happening, only something else having happened. Otherwise anyone could accuse you of anything without any proof and you would be screwed unless you film yourself 24/7. On the flip side, if you are accusing someone of having done something, well, there should be some type of evidence that something occurred, thus the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation, not the person who didn't do something.
When someone says you can't prove a negative they don't mean can you logically get someone to agree with your statement, they are referring to the fact that outside of talking about it you cannot present any evidence of a negative, a non event, something not happening, because whatever you present will be a positive, an actual event, something real. You can only think about something that doesn't exist, you can't point to it in the same way as something that does exist.
SpaceManBob. Do you wipe your ass first then take a crap?
A strenuous analogy.
Either way, I never said it makes sense, and it certainly is not something that should be required in a just justice system.
It's possible, doesn't mean it should be the primary method of proof.